Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.

▲

OnlineGladiator 4 days ago | parent [-]

All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting.

How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?

▲

glenstein 3 days ago | parent [-]

This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.

▲

OnlineGladiator 2 days ago | parent [-]

And I think you're completely missing the point. And you say this comment thread is a waste and yet you keep replying. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think repeating yourself for a fifth time is going to achieve something?

▲

glenstein 2 days ago | parent [-]

The difference is I can name specific things that you are in fact demonstrably ignoring, and already did name them. You're saying you just have a different opinion, in an attempt to mirror the form of my criticism, but you can't articulate a comparable distinction and you're not engaging with the distinction I'm putting forward.

▲

OnlineGladiator 2 days ago | parent [-]

So your goal here is to say the same thing over and over again and hope I eventually give the affirmation you so desperately need? You've already declared that you're right multiple times. Nobody cares but you.

https://xkcd.com/386/

You might want to develop a sense of humor. You'll enjoy life more.

▲

glenstein a day ago | parent [-]

My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed.

You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.

▲

OnlineGladiator a day ago | parent [-]

As I've said many times before, I am aware of everything you have said. I just don't care. You seem to be really upset that someone on the internet disagrees with you. And from my perspective, you are the one that has no self-awareness and is completely missing the point. You don't even understand the conversation we're having and yet you're constantly condescending.

I'm sure if you keep repeating yourself though I'll change my mind.

▲

glenstein 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Simianwords said: "use GPT 5 with thinking and search disabled and get it to give you inaccurate facts for non niche, non deep topics" and noted that mistakes were possible, but rare.

JustExAWS replied with an example of getting Python code wrong and suggested it was a counter example. Simianwords correctly noted that their comment originally said thinking mode for factual answers on non-niche topics and posted a link that got the python answer right with thinking enabled.

That's when you entered, suggesting that Simian was "missing" the point that GPT (not distinguishing thinking or regular mode), was "not always right". But they had already acknowledged multiple times that it was not always right. They said the accuracy was "high enough", noted that LLMs get coding wrong, and reiterating that their challenge was specifically about thinking mode.

You, again without acknowledging the criteria they had noted previously, insisted this was cherry picking, missing the point that they were actually being consistent from the beginning, inviting anyone to give an example showing otherwise. At no point between then and here have you demonstrated an awareness of this criteria despite your protestations to the contrary.

Instead of paying attention to any of the details you're insulting me and retreating into irritated resentment.

	▲	OnlineGladiator 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for repeating yourself again. It's really hammering home the point. Please, continue.